Tuesday, March 10, 2015

What is the degree of bluff in Putin's nuclear threat? - GS | Selected Comments on "Military analysis of what Russia really wants...": Posted by Niegol:"The author refers to Churchil in one of the last paragraphs. He however proposes a strategy more closely associated with Neville Chamberlain. This strategy was directly responsible for emboldening Hitler to start the second world war, and will do the same for Putin."

Selected Comments on 

Military analysis of what Russia really wants reveals nuclear dangers




Tosh.
Read Anna Politkovskaya for what Putin wants.
The summary of the article is Putin pushes and the West must give in.





                                               Posted by IanCa





One can ponder how many forces and how much momentum there is in the USA for developing confrontation with Russia. There is not much “buffer” left between Russia and NATO, so they tend to “contain” each other with “red lines”, with the obvious exception in Ukraine and maybe Moldova.
But most days, the US is more occupied with the Middle East … Israel, Iran, Islamic State, Saudi, Iraq, Egypt, … and things can go from bad to worse and worser.
In the wider sense, China is more of a competitor than Russia, in many aspects including basic research, patents, advanced manufacturing technology, …
So as before, the British can worry about developments in Europe, but also where the Americans are at. Not many “better dead than Red” cold warriors left.
Posted by Neurochuck






















This is just Russia trying to remain relevant in a world that does not really need them any more. Russia has had open markets for 25 years now, and their chief exports are orphans and herpes.
Now the investors are pulling out and Russia is left playing Putin chest-thump at the Chernobyl waste site. It’s sad and silly.
Posted by AlkalineState











There is excessive acquiescence here to Russia’s interests and Russia’s needs. The vantage point is entirely that of what Russia and Putin want, what is in Russia’s interests, as if every other state in the region has to placate the aggression coming out of the Kremlin – and serve as a “buffer”. And as if those “buffer” states which experienced terror and mass killing at the hands of both the Soviets and the Nazis – the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland – have no legitimate rights or interests of their own. But they do and that should be recognized. And understandably most have joined NATO for collective security.
Posted by Cassiopian

















The author refers to Churchil in one of the last paragraphs. He however proposes a strategy more closely associated with Neville Chamberlain. This strategy was directly responsible for emboldening Hitler to start the second world war, and will do the same for Putin.
The author assumes Putin is a powerpolitician in control of his actions, and able to be measured by western standards. These are both false assumptions. Seceding Crimea to Putin will encourage him to attack a NATO state (or more accurately, the popular sentiment that this will encourage will force his hand as looking weak is something he cannot afford or survive). This will force NATO into a military confrotation with Russia. Therefore the strategy proposed by the author is one of the most assured ways to a nuclear war.
Posted by Niegol



















____________________________________________

See also: 

bluff - GS

Putin's nuclear bluff - GS

What is the degree of bluff in Putin's nuclear threat? - GS


M.N.: My estimate is: between 50% and 75%. It is too risky to call it. However, I think that if push comes to shove, his own generals will stop him and he will be thrown out, just like Khrushchev. But I think we all are very reluctant even to consider or imagine this apocalyptic scenario, as the normal people should. He is not, he is mad: enraged and paranoid, beneath the facade of calmness and calculating cool. His greatest fear is to appear weak in front of his people, this was his main motivation for the Ukrainian war: to escape the damning accusations that he "lost Ukraine", along with conceptually predetermined strategic response to the contagion of "color revolutions", initiated by Primakov after the humiliation of last Balkan wars and later developed into full fledged strategy by him and intelligence-military communities. 
This response, curiously, is very close to Russian mafia and business principle and practice of "отщипка": biting off a piece when you are exploiting or loosing a whole. Apparently, they could not come up with something smarter. 
Mr. Tefft put it well: "We all know the history [of Crimea] but it should not be done this way.


No comments:

Post a Comment